SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH REPORT OF THE AUSTRALIAN WRITING SURVEY JULY 2018

Writing

Standards

Time

Goal setting

Data Literacy

Teacher Education

Claire Wyatt-Smith Christine Jackson Vani Borooah Karen Whalley

Summary of the Main Research Report prepared for the New South Wales Education Standards

Authority titled:

How is writing taught in NSW classrooms?

2018

ISBN Print 978-1-922097-58-3 Electronic 978-1-922097-59-0

Our sincere gratitude goes to the teachers who participated in the Australian Writing Survey. We appreciate your time and insights into how you approach the teaching of writing in your classroom.

The New South Wales Education Standards Authority commissioned the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education Australia to undertake this investigation into the teaching of writing in New South Wales schools. We appreciate the support and expertise provided throughout the study.

Summary Research Report

Introduction

Beginning in 2008, the corpus of data collected for the National Assessment Program - Literacy

and Numeracy (NAPLAN) provides a rich resource for examining performance in literacy and

numeracy both within a year level and over time at national and state levels. The data make it

possible to track performance trends in ways not possible in earlier eras. This Summary Research Report

draws on a study undertaken for the New South Wales Education Standards Authority

(NESA) that commissioned the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education (ILSTE) to

undertake a survey study to examine how writing is taught across the phases of learning and in a wide

range of curriculum areas. The focus of this investigation was the reported declines in performance

in the writing test across stages of schooling (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting

Authority [ACARA], 2020).

The body of research on writing has examined key elements such as the functional approach to literacy,

teachers’ understanding of grammar, and teacher confidence in understanding how language works in

the context of writing (Christie & Derewianka, 2008; Harper & Rennie, 2009; Jones & Chen, 2012;

Love, Sandiford, Macken-Horarik, & Unsworth, 2014). Further, while writing has been studied for

decades, the problem of how to assess writing appears to defy resolution, with the complexity of

writing assessment increasing in an era of new technologies (Kimber & Wyatt-Smith, 2014; Wyatt-

Smith & Kimber, 2013). While there is an abundance of commercial programs competing for teacher

attention, many of these lack an evidence-base to show their impact on student learning

outcomes, including in writing. This is compounded by the historic absence of a national evidence

base to show how writing is being taught in phases of learning and in curriculum areas.

Survey design

The Australian Writing Survey (AWS)©1 was designed to address this significant gap in knowledge to

inform policy, research and practice. The primary aim of the survey is to generate information about the

practices teachers rely on in teaching writing across different curriculum areas and phases of learning,

as well as teachers’ self-reports of how well prepared they are to teach writing, based on their

Initial Teacher Education. It gathers information about the types of Professional Development (PD) that

teachers engage in with relation to the teaching of writing and also the classroom practices in

assessment. The survey has eight main focus areas or themes that are presented in this report as follows:

1 Australian Catholic University and the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education 2018.

THEME 1 Initial Teacher Education (ITE)

THEME 2 Professional Learning and Development

THEME 3 Writing Strategies and Instruction

THEME 4 Text Types

THEME 5 Language in Use (focus on grammar)

THEME 6 Use of Digital Technologies

THEME 7 Assessment and Reporting

THEME 8 NAPLAN Writing

The survey was developed by the two lead authors of the man report titled How is writing taught in NSW

Classrooms? It is informed by the Australian Curriculum Materials as they relate to the teaching of writing

(ACARA, 2018a), New South Wales Department of Education Literacy Continuum (2017), the Australian

Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) Professional Standards for Teachers (2016), and the

Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers Report (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014).

Collaboration with NESA occurred through formal meetings, by email and by phone for the purposes of

ensuring item specificity, clarity and scope, and to confirm that the survey items and constructs addressed

the terms of reference.

Sampling methodology

NESA specified the sampling method based on data that they had available to them. The teachers

represented both accredited teachers (post 2004) and non-accredited teachers (pre-2004). NESA

requested:

[a] conventional sampling approach using a simple random sample from a known population (approximately

93,000 teachers in NSW schools based on ABS figures). The convention is to specify a margin of error of ±5%,

i.e. if the survey finds that 61% of respondents do something, we can be confident that the 'real' population

figure is between 56% and 66%. We also need to specify a desired level of confidence - the convention is to

set it at 95%. This means that the 'real' result would fall within a specified range 95% of the time i.e. there is

a 5% (1 in 20) chance that the 'real' figure is outside that range.

Using these parameters, the minimum sample sizes were to be as follows:

• Primary teachers: 375

• Secondary science teachers: 322

• Secondary English teachers: 344

• Secondary HSIE teachers: 357

As can be seen in the Table 1 below all sample size targets were achieved giving a desired level of

confidence.

Table 1: Targeted and actual sample size

Sample Target Sample Size Sample Actual Sample Size

Primary teachers 375 Primary 2073

Secondary English 344 Secondary English 802

Secondary Science 322 Secondary Science 333

Secondary HSIE 357 Secondary HSIE 415

Overview of survey respondents

A total of 4306 New South Wales teachers across the three sectors took part in the AWS©. The survey

engaged Government, Independent and Catholic sectors and both Primary and Secondary schools. The

largest sector to participate was the Government sector (57%), followed by the Independent (25%) and

Catholic (17%) sectors. The percentage of Government schools in the final sample is comparable to that of

the whole population, however the Independent and Catholic sectors appear to be slightly over-sampled,

based on the considerable percentage of ‘Unknown’ (11.7%) from the reported whole population. This may

impact the true percentages of Independent, Catholic and Government sectors (Table 2).

Table 2: Sector and gender breakdown of whole population

Whole Population Final Sample

Sector and Gender Count % Count %

Government - DEC 94288 59.6% Government 2470 57.4%

Female 72001 76.4% 1995 80.8%

Male 22287 23.6% 475 19.2%

Independent - Individual School 19876 12.6% Independent 1088 25.3%

Female 13760 69.2% 829 67.2%

Male 6116 30.8% 259 23.8%

Independent - System School (Diocesan) 18955 12.0% Catholic 748 17.4%

Female 14623 77.1% 619 82.8%

Male 4332 22.9% 129 17.2%

Early Childhood Sector 6662 4.2% ---

Female 6546 98.3%

Male 116 1.7%

Unknown 18555 11.7% ---

Female 13894 74.9%

Male 4661 25.1%

Grand Total 158336 4306 100.0%

Main Findings

Current teaching practices and recommended interventions to improve the teaching of writing

The study presented in the main report titled How is writing taught in NSW classrooms? breaks new ground

in several ways: first, using the purpose-designed AWS©, the study has generated a large corpus of

previously unavailable information about the teaching of writing in and across the phases of schooling and

subject areas.

The research is not interested in inter-sector comparisons, nor is it interested in comparative analyses

across schools. Readers should know that there was also no interest in connecting the practices that

teachers report in their survey responses to NAPLAN results at the school level. Instead, the study has as

its core the interest in learning from teachers about the practices and strategies they use to teach writing

in subject areas.

The study also brings to light cross-subject perspectives. The similarities and differences between and

across subject areas in how writing is taught and the time spent on teaching writing are highlighted, as is

the time for students to do sustained writing. The study also provides an empirical evidence base showing

teachers’ perceptions about how well prepared they are on completion of their Initial Teacher Education.

The timing of this study is therefore significant, occurring at the same time as the Federal Government and

state governments are moving towards improving writing performance and implementing reform

strategies in Initial Teacher Education (ITE).

Finding 1: Greater focus on the teaching of writing in ITE programs Despite the concerted focus on literacy education in education policy, broadly speaking, teachers report

that ITE is a weak intervention in preparing teachers for teaching writing in subject areas. Forty-nine

percent of teachers identified being underprepared (not prepared and minimally prepared) for the task of

‘Teaching writing’ and over one half of teachers indicated that they were not prepared or minimally

prepared to teach the text structures of ‘imaginative, persuasive and informative text’. With approximately

half of the teachers indicating they were not prepared in these fundamental areas of writing, a more

systematic approach to teacher preparation in writing instruction across the stages of learning is urgently

required.

Finding 2: Identifying the slump – changing patterns of practice The AWS© results indicate distinct shifts in the priority given to teaching writing across stages of learning

from K-12. The data indicate that the regularity of the explicit teaching of writing is emphasised in K-2 and

peaks in Years 3-6, before dipping in Years 7-10. Following this decline, there is a marked increase in focus

on explicitly teaching writing in Years 11-12. This could reflect the emphasis on writing during most subjects

as teachers prepare students for the Higher School Certificate.

Finding 3: Sub-element of writing – handwriting, keyboarding and spelling ‘Handwriting’ and ‘Keyboarding’ were not emphasised in Initial Teacher Education completed by primary

and secondary teachers in the study sample. Sixty-three percent of secondary teachers and 44% of primary

teachers indicated that they were not prepared to teach ‘Keyboarding’ while primary teachers (39%)

indicated that they had greater explicit instruction in ‘Handwriting’ compared to secondary teachers. In

classroom writing practices, there is minimal engagement of teachers in Years 7-10 and 11-12 in explicitly

teaching ‘Keyboarding’.

Finding 4: Greater attention is needed to contextualise the place of writing in Subjects Other Than English (SOTE) Greater attention is needed to contextualise the place of writing in SOTE. Prioritising the teaching of writing

in subject areas will go some way to valuing the critical building blocks of writing that feature so

predominantly in the Senior syllabus, including in assessment requirements.

We call into question how well subject teachers have been served by the term literacy, and how they

understand what it means for teaching the language and content knowledge demands of their respective

subjects. Over half of Science (57%) and remaining secondary (58%) teachers indicated that they spent less

than an hour or never explicitly teaching writing in the classroom. These findings offer a red light, taking

account of the syllabus requirements for subjects such as Science.

Finding 5: Student goal setting and appraisal of student writing to provide effective feedback The setting of goals for student writing is not given sustained priority across subject areas and across the

years of schooling. Forty-two percent of Years 7-10 secondary teachers and 37% of 11-12 teachers

indicated that they never or rarely ‘Led students in setting goals for their writing’, while 47% of 3-6 primary

and 51% of K-2 teachers reported that they initiated this practice regularly or during most lessons. This

suggests that students could complete their schooling with limited opportunity to set goals and self-

monitor progress against these. The potential of formative assessment, especially as it engages students in

their own learning, is not being realised in many classrooms.

Finding 6: Teachers’ data literacy The AWS© has brought to light the need for a more concerted focus on the teaching of writing during ITE.

It has also suggested that PD could usefully focus on developing teachers’ understanding and use of

standards, including to inform student goal setting and formative assessment feedback. Teachers would

benefit from strengthening their knowledge of how to use writing data connected to the writing

progressions as a cyclical approach, that weaves backwards and forwards from emergent writing to more

competent and accomplished, informed by regular diagnostic engagement with student writing. A collation

of targeted writing exemplars linked to clear standards of writing against the progressions are needed to

demystify for teachers expected writing standards for students and specifically, in text types related to

their disciplines.

Finding 7: Clear policy directions about expected standards Overall, the teachers’ responses indicated that there are multiple standards competing for their attention.

Teachers would benefit from a policy that establishes the standards they are to use. This would go some

way to achieving consistency in both language and application across schools and sectors, and some

consistency in expectations of quality within and across schools. Of further interest to NESA might be the

exploration of how teachers are using the Australian Curriculum Standards as part of their judgement of

student writing.

Another potential source of confusion for teachers may be the introduction of the recently released ACARA

National Literacy and Numeracy Progressions (ACARA, 2018b). How teachers use the progressions to judge

standards of writing in the context of their subject will need clear policy direction to help navigate the

curriculum document maze, especially as it concerns standards and expectations about quality in writing.

Finding 8: Effort versus output – factors that influence student writing In terms of explaining the amount of time teachers devote to teaching writing, the results indicated six

core messages:

Gender matters. Compared to men, women were significantly more likely to put in high effort (21.5%

versus 15.5%) into teaching writing. However, this gender difference was only significant at the

secondary level when the Predicted Probability (PP) of high effort by women, 8.5%, was significantly

greater than the corresponding PP, 6.3%, by men.

Status matters. Compared to full-time teachers, casual and part-time teachers were significantly less

likely to put in high effort, with PP of 14.3%, 14.7%, and 23.3% for, respectively, casual, part-time,

and full-time teachers. These results also held for primary and secondary teaching. There was,

however, no significant difference between casual and part-time teachers in their PP of high effort.

Subject matters. Compared to teachers of secondary English, teachers of other secondary subjects were

significantly less likely to put in high effort into teaching writing – respectively, PP of 14.6%, 4.9%,

3.3%, and 3.1% for English, HSIE, Science, and remaining secondary.

Level of schooling matters. Compared to teachers in the secondary years, teachers in the primary years

were significantly more likely to put in high effort (33.1% versus 8.2%) into teaching writing.

Initial Teacher Education Training matters. Teachers who felt that they had been prepared for teaching

writing by their ITE were significantly more likely to put in high effort into teaching writing to their

students than teachers who felt that they had been unprepared for this by their ITE: 23.8% versus

16.8%.

Recommendations

The following recommendations draw on the preceding discussion of findings. They are offered as a suite

of proposed actions in practice, policy and research, with the common focus on improving the teaching of

writing. The recommendations span a range of stakeholders at the system, school and classroom levels

including those responsible for curriculum and assessment policy; school leaders and teachers; and those

responsible for ITE and assuring the readiness of graduates for NSW classrooms.

Recommendation 1: The teaching of writing in ITE training We recommend a sharp focus on the teaching of writing in all ITE courses. This recommendation is

consistent with the overall finding that the experience of ITE – induction into to how to teach writing -

carries forward to the classroom. A related point is that the time that teachers spend in teaching writing

and the time students spend in sustained writing in class are strongly and positively correlated. ITE

programs should be reviewed systematically to identify the gaps in the preparation of teachers to teach

writing. They should also be examined for the approaches taken to preparing preservice teachers for

teaching writing in subject areas. The survey has also shown the need for examining teacher preparation

in Standard 5 in general and Standard 5.4 in particular (AITSL, 2016). These relate directly to the teachers’

data literacy and teacher preparation in using data and evidence to inform teaching and improve learning.

We recommend a greater focus on data literacy in ITE.

Recommendation 2: Middle school focus

We recommend recognition of the importance of time for sustained writing in the classroom and across

subject areas in the middle years. This has particular salience in learning in the phase where the

foundations in subject knowledge and control of language in use are to be built on the foundations of the

early years. The analysis also revealed that there was a significant fall in the degree of confidence to teach

a number of aspects relating to grammar between 3-6 and 7-10, and a further fall between 7-10 and 11-12

(see Finding 2). The data indicate a regression with respect to teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach

aspects of grammar relating to language in use: teachers’ confidence shrinks as the level of education

increases.

Recommendation 3: Greater clarity around standards of writing to address teacher confusion about the standards they are to use We recommend that a systematic audit of policy, curriculum and assessment documents be undertaken

with a focus on standards and expectations of quality writing in particular. The focus should be on what

teachers are expected to use to inform their teaching and assessment practices, including their use of

standards.

Recommendation 4: Targeted Professional Development focusing on the teaching of writing We recommend that the findings of the AWS© be used to plan differentiated programs of PD. The

overarching framework would be the teaching, learning and assessment cycle, with priority areas identified

within this cycle where needed, as evident in the data analysis. However, at a deeper level, the analyses

have shown that gender, age and employment status do influence practices. The approach to PD should

take account of these influences and identify what would be common across PD opportunities and what

would be prioritised, say, in relation to years of teaching experience.

Recommendation 5: Greater engagement with digital technologies as part of the writing process We recommend a targeted approach to PD for all teachers, specifically those new to teaching and all

secondary subject area teachers. We also recommend, in order to prepare students for 21st Century

learning, that a greater focus on digital technologies is required as part of the writing focus in teacher PD.

Compared to secondary teachers, primary school teachers utilised digital devices with less frequency when

it came to engaging with the writing process. Schools and teachers need to connect with digital devices as

part of exercises, in collaboration to plan, draft, revise and edit a piece of writing. Engaging with digital

devices presents opportunities for engagement and discussions relating to writing and prospective

deliberations connecting to how writing looks and plays out in a digital world.

Recommendation 6: Greater utilisation of writing data to inform next-steps teaching We recommend PD for teachers in how to use data to inform decision-making for next-step teaching. The

primary focus of this would be on how to teach to close the gap between students’ current and desired

levels of performance at the whole class and individual levels. Specifically, the PD should build capability in

how to infer meaning from a range of evidence types including standardised measures and evidence

collected routinely by the teacher.

Recommendation 7: All subject area teachers need to take responsibility for the teaching of writing as integral to the teaching of curriculum knowledge We recommend that system authorities endorse the principle that all teachers have responsibility for the

development of student writing as it pertains to their subject specialisations. This needs to be read in the

context of Recommendation 4, with clear direction provided in policy, curriculum and assessment

documents to inform teaching and assessment practice.

Greater attention is needed to contextualise the place of writing in SOTE. Prioritising the teaching of writing

in all subject areas will go some way to valuing the critical building blocks of writing that feature so

predominantly in the senior syllabus, including in HSC assessment requirements.

Recommendation 8: Handwriting, keyboarding and spelling We recommend a review of the research on the place of keyboarding instruction, handwriting and spelling.

This is timely given the newly released ACARA Literacy and Numeracy Progressions (ACARA, 2018b) that

prioritise the sub-element of ‘Handwriting’ and ‘Keyboarding’ as a critical skill for the 21st Century. A focus

of this investigation would be on the benefits and limitations of traditional and new technologies in

supporting students in learning to write and in effective teaching of writing strategies. Of special import

is how writing tools (old technologies: pens; new technologies using multimodalities) impact the

composing process and the assessment of writing. To date, the assessment of students’ writing online,

including the criteria that teachers could use to assess writing, is in its infancy (Wyatt-Smith & Kimber,

2013).

Recommendation 9: More time needs to be allocated to the teaching of writing Effort=Time=Output The evidence from the AWS© clearly indicated that the time teachers spend teaching writing and the time

students spend on sustained writing in class are strongly and positively correlated. This finding suggests

that greater opportunity for sustained writing time in the classroom is needed.

Recommendation 10: Increasing the complexity of writing instruction – building the capability of students and teachers This recommendation builds on Finding 2 and Recommendation 2 introducing a model showing the need

for systematic building of Knowledge and Skills in the teaching of writing as it connects with curriculum

knowledge over the years of schooling. Through this model, we recommend a greater focus on the middle

years through the intersection of Knowledge and Skills, Student Attributes and Capabilities; and Teaching

Dispositions (from Novice to Expert).

Greater emphasis on attributes and teaching dispositions of ‘Expert Writing Teachers’ would provide clarity

to the profession as to what are the aspirational writing practices that impact student learning. Aligning

‘Expert Writing Teacher Dispositions’ to accreditation for Proficiency, Highly Accomplished and Lead

Teacher attributes (AITSL, 2016) would prioritise for the professional the expectation that the teaching of

writing is a cross-curricular, progressive across stages of learning and a priority for the profession.

References

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2018a). Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2018b). National Literacy and Numeracy Learning Progressions. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/national-literacy-and-numeracy-learning-progressions/

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.(2020). NAPLAN Reports. Retrieved from: https://reports.acara.edu.au/

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016) 5.4 Interpret student data. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

Christie, F., & Derewianka., B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum International Publishing.

Harper, H., & Rennie, J. (2009). ‘I had to go out and get myself a book on grammar’: A study of pre-service teachers’ knowledge about language, Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32(1), 22-37.

Jones, P., & Chen, H. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge about language: Issues of pedagogy and expertise. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 147-168.

Kimber, K., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2014). Designing next generation assessment. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert. (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 357-371). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Love, K., Sandiford, C., Macken-Horarik. M., & Unsworth, L. (2014). ‘From ‘Bored Witless’ to ‘Rhetorical Nous’: Teacher orientation to knowledge about language and strengthening student persuasive writing’. English in Australia, 49(3), 43-56.

New South Wales Department of Education (DoE). (2017). Literacy continuum. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/teaching-and-learning/curriculum/literacy-and-numeracy/literacy/literacy-continuum

Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Canberra: Department of Education and Training.

Wyatt-Smith, C.M., & Kimber, K. (2013). Reframing literacy for a screen-based age: A case for digital mindsets. In A. Steele & E. Silliman (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed) (pp.127-144). USA: Guilford Publications.